Skip to main content
Niyamam AI Niyamam AI

Main navigation

  • Home
  • Lawyer Login
  • Lawyer Registration
  • About us
  • Contact
O.S. No. 373/2020

Case between Rajeevan T.T vs Anoop P.C regarding recovery of money

Court
THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Judge
Sri. Rohit Nandakumar
Order Date
2024-06-21
Duration
approximately-4 years 6 months
Case Closed

Judgement document from eCourt website

Judgment Document
Save Case Find Similar Cases

Case Summary

Rajeevan T.T, a driver with KSRTC, filed a suit against his friend Anoop P.C for recovery of a loan amount. Anoop defaulted on loan repayments, prompting Rajeevan to seek legal recourse to recover the amount paid on Anoop's behalf.

Judgment Outcome

Plaintiff Won
Interim Order
The court decreed in favor of the plaintiff, ordering the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.1,30,000/- along with interest. If the defendant fails to comply, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount from the defendant's assets.
Judgment Favored
Plaintiff
Relief Granted
The defendant shall pay an amount of ₹1,30,000/- to the plaintiff with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from 31.05.2017.
Case Type
Civil Suit
Final Judgment
No
The court decreed in favor of the plaintiff, ordering the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.1,30,000/- along with interest. If the defendant fails to comply, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount from the defendant's assets.
Why Plaintiff Won:
The evidence presented by the plaintiff was unrebutted, establishing that the defendant owes the claimed amount.
Losing Side's Weaknesses:
The evidence presented by the plaintiff was unrebutted, establishing that the defendant owes the claimed amount.
Supporting Evidence
There is no reason on record to disbelieve the evidence tendered by PW1. From the unrebutted testimony of PW1, it is clear that the defendant owes an amount of Rs.1,30,000/- to the plaintiff.

Judgment Evidence:

In the result, the suit is decreed as follows: I. The defendant shall pay an amount of ₹1,30,000/-...III. Considering the nature of the suit and circumstances surrounding the suit, the plaintiff is entitled to realise the costs of the suit from the defendant.

Parties Involved

Parties

Party Role
Plaintiff
Party Name
Rajeevan T.T
Relation
S/o
Party Role
Defendant
Party Name
Anoop P.C
Party Age
41
Relation
S/o
Plaintiffs Documents
Account Statement issued by Assistant Transport Officer, K.S.R.T.C, Aluva, Certificate issued by the Shanmukhapuram Co-operative Bank Ltd., Certificate of remittance issued by the Shanmukhapuram Co-operative Bank Ltd., Ledger extract issued by Shanmukhapuram Co-operative Bank Ltd.
Defendants Documents

Advocates

Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Liffy P. Francis
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Plaintiff
Advocate Name
Athira Joy
Appearance Type
Assisting Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
Sajeevan Karukuttiyullathil
Appearance Type
Main Counsel
Party Role
Defendant
Advocate Name
John Joseph Thomas N.F
Appearance Type
Assisting Counsel

Reliefs

Relief Type: Recovery
Outcome: Granted
Description:
The plaintiff was awarded Rs.1,30,000/- along with interest to be paid by the defendant.
Evidence:
In such circumstances, the plaint is to be allowed. I am of the opinion that fixing the rate of interest to be levied upon the principal amount of Rs.1,30,000/- at the rate of 7.5% per annum from 31.05.2017 will be sufficient in the interest of justice.
Relief Type: Costs
Outcome: Granted
Description:
The plaintiff is entitled to realize the costs of the suit from the defendant.
Evidence:
Considering the nature of the suit and circumstances surrounding the suit, the plaintiff is entitled to realize the costs of the suit from the defendant.

Documents & Evidence

Document Type: Account Statement
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document was used to substantiate the plaintiff's claim regarding the amounts recovered from his salary.
Reference:
Ext.A1
Document Type: Certificate
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This certificate was part of the evidence supporting the financial transactions related to the loan.
Reference:
Ext.A2
Document Type: Certificate of remittance
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This document served to illustrate the payments related to the loan.
Reference:
Ext.A3
Document Type: Ledger Extract
Submitted By: Plaintiff
Relevance:
This extract was used to detail the financial dealings associated with the loan.
Reference:
Ext.A4

Case Classification

Case Type
Civil Suit
Category
Money and Loan Recovery
District
Ernakulam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Ernakulam
Common Reasons
Recovery of money
Case Code
Case between Rajeevan T.T vs Anoop P.C regarding recovery of money
Case Code Year
Case between Rajeevan T.T vs Anoop P.C regarding recovery of money

Quick Facts

Location
Ernakulam
District
Ernakulam
State
Kerala
Court Establishment
Munsiff Court, Ernakulam
Case Filed
Sun, 06/21/2020 - 12:00
Case Closed
From
Sat, 06/01/2024 - 12:00
To
Sun, 06/30/2024 - 12:00
Outcome Confidence
90%

Involved Entities

Similar Cases

Case between Canara Bank vs Mrs. Preethymol P.T regarding realization of money
Court of the Third Addl. Munsiff & Rent Controller, Ernakulam
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Fr. Antony Chiriyankandath vs Sri. Mathew C.T. regarding realization of money
THE COURT OF THE THIRD ADDL. MUNSIFF & RENT CONTROLLER
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Bank of Baroda represented by its Chief Manager, Manohar M vs Ratheesh P.S regarding recovery of money
COURT OF THE MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between Meera N B vs Vincy E J et al regarding realization of money
COURT OF MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won
Case between M/s Transformers and Electrical Industries vs M/s Crystal Traders regarding realization of money
COURT OF MUNSIFF, ERNAKULAM
Civil Suit Plaintiff Won